Not all benefits of testing are backward facing.
Repeated, spaced retrieval practice largely references the backward effect of testing, that is, retrieval practice of previously studied information when compared to restudy, leads to that information more likely to be remembered in the future. Nothing new there. However, a lesser promoted benefit of testing is the growing body of research that previously studied information can enhance learning of subsequently presented new but conceptually related information. Think of it as ‘facilitative effects.’ And on learning of information that is not necessarily related to the previously tested material. This post takes a look at the forward effects of testing or pre-testing or potentiated learning.
Potentiated Learning: The facilitative effect of retrieval practice on subsequent encoding or learning.
I first encountered the forward effects of retrieval when reading Szpunar et al, (2008). Participants studied five word lists in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test. Prior to the experiment, participants were told to expect different activities that may follow the presentation of each single list: solving math problems, restudy of words from a just studied list, or immediate free recall of words from a just studied list. Cleverly, the experimenter pretended that activities following each list were determined randomly, they were not. Each interlist activities differed between experimental groups, and participants passed through the same activities, within each experimental group. Critically, all participants were tested immediately on the last list in the study sequence, referred to as target list 5. I hope that makes sense?
Two striking results emerged from the list 5 recall test: Participants who had been tested immediately on lists 1–4 recalled about twice as much list 5 items than the two non-tested groups; in addition, they showed much fewer prior-list intrusions than did participants in the two other groups.
So what does this tell us? These results indicate a beneficial forward effect of recall testing in multiple-list learning because retrieval practice of lists, but not restudy of the lists, affected list 5 recall, the results indicate a retrieval-specific effect. The forward effect of testing. And that effect is not restricted to the learning of words, but generalises to the learning of various kinds of materials, storylines, videos faces and names.
Pre-testing and interim testing improves performance outcomes.
So what actually is going on?
Both encoding and retrieval explanations have been put forth to account for the forward effect of testing. These get pretty heavy, pretty quickly. Retrieval explanations suggest that recall testing between the study of lists promotes contextual list segregation, enhancing list differentiation and reducing interference between lists at test. At test, improved list segregation permits participants to use list-specific context cues and create more focused memory search. Notably, a reduced response latency. See – I did warn you.
Encoding explanations suggest that recall testing of prior non-target materials improves encoding of the subsequently studied target material. That testing induces a reset of the encoding process, making the encoding of the later lists as effective as the encoding of the earlier lists, (Pastötter and Bäuml 2014).
Recent neurocognitive work on brain oscillations supports this, but I will be asking @overpractised if I have got that right.
Forward testing effects in education?
Education is flooded with evidence for the backward effect of testing, evidence in unequivocal (Agarwal et al. 2021). However, although less frequently reported, there is some very interesting research on forward effects of testing or potentiated learning or pre-testing.
Studies have shown that prequestions – asking students questions before they learn something – benefit memory retention.
Carpenter et al. (2018)
…that administering interim low-stakes tests during a study phase can be profitably used to enhance the learning of new information regardless of whether it is from the same or a different domain.
Yang et al. (2019).
Students completing more than 50% of the retrieval quizzes performed significantly better (i.e., more than a half letter grade) on the cumulative final exam than those who were below 50% participation.
Todd et al. (2021).
Directly comparing both opportunities, post-testing and pre-testing relative to an extended reading condition, on a retention test 7 days later, Latimier et al., (2019) reported both posttesting (d = 0.74) and pre-testing effects (d = 0.35) benefitted learning.
As peculiar as it sounds, attempting to retrieve a memory enhances subsequent learning even if the attempt is unsuccessful (Kornell et al. 2015).
Even unsuccessful retrieval attempts promotes later learning.
Wrapping up
Pre and interim recall testing has a retrieval-specific effect. It potentiates learning, and benefits from greater test-expectancy. Hence students exert effort towards encoding new information and more effort to retrieve [and maintain] the subsequently studied information.
Priming: It is like you tow a caravan for the first time, you become aware or primed of just how many caravans are on the roads.
The recommendation: use pre and interim testing to potentiate learning (as well as retrieval) and to leverage the benefits for the “test-expectancy” effect.
What knowledge might you prime?
Key names, events or restrictive knowledge. Knowledge that precludes a learning from understanding. You might explicitly teach key vocabulary (though there are varying opinions about explicit teaching of vocabulary for comprehension).
Pingback: Revive forgotten memories | KristianStill
Pingback: Reduce mind wandering – Edventures
Pingback: Prior knowledge helps the rich get richer – Edventures